vs THE MUNICIPALITY OF ALFONSO Corporation (PSALM), a GOCC, which in LISTA, IFUGAO turn transferred the same to petitioner SN Aboitiz Power Magat, Inc (SNAP). Nov 20, 2017 | Settlement of Boundary Disputes | J. 3. MUN prayed for the declaration of nullity Tinga of Special Patent No. 3723 and OCT No. SUMMARY: Mun. of Alfonso Lista filed a 0-1 because the same were void for failure declaration of nullity of Special Patent No. 3723 to reflect the true location of the subject and OCT No. 0-1 against NPC (predecessor of parcels of land. MUN averred that the SNAP) because the same were void for failure to Register of Deeds of Isabela, which reflect the true location of the subject parcels of registered the subject patent, did not have land as they were actually in Ifugao whereas NPC the authority to do so because it had no made it appear that they were in Isabela. SC jurisdiction over the parcels of land covered dismissed for failure to state a cause of action since by the same. In the alternative, MUN one of the elements of a Declaration of Nullity of prayed that the wordings of Special Title Complaint is that the allegations contain Patent No. 3723 and the subsequent titles assertions of ownership over the land, whereas the derived therefrom be amended to reflect Municipality was not claiming ownership over the the true location of the subject parcels of property. As consolation, the Court said that the land (Brgy. Sto. Domingo). MUN Municipality has a remedy to settle this boundary emphasized that it was asserting its right of. dispute—Sec 118 of the Local Government Code. jurisdiction, not ownership, over the land. 4. Instead of filing an Answer, SNAP, as DOCTRINE: [Sec 118, Local Gov’t Code; SEE successor-in-interest of NPC, filed a Motion RULE #3] to Dismiss (MtD) on the grounds of prescription and failure to state a cause of FACTS: action. SNAP maintained that it had a valid 1. Municipality of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao title to the subject property. (MUN) filed an Amended Complaint, 5. RTC denied the MtD. SNAP filed MR alleging that the National Power (denied). Corporation (NPC) fraudulently secured 6. SNAP filed a Petition for Certiorari and Special Patent No. 3723 by making it Prohibition with the CA. CA denied. The appear in the survey plans that certain issue of the validity of petitioner’s claim of parcels of land were located in Brgy title over the subject property should be General Aguinaldo, Ramon, Isabela when threshed out through the presentation of these parcels of land were actually located evidence and resolved after trial on the in Brgy Sto. Domingo in Alfonso Lista, merits. SNAP filed MR (denied). Ifugao. ISSUE/HELD: W/N the dismissal of the case is 2. MUN’s Allegation: That on the strength of proper Yes, for not stating a cause of action such survey plans, NPC succeeded in having the Special Patent No. 3723 entered in the RULES: registry of books of the Register of Deeds of Santiago City in 2004. Consequently, 1. Cause of Action (COA) Elements: (1) a Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-1 right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever was issued. Later on, NPC alienated such means and under whatever law it arises or is parcels of land in favor of Power Sector created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate over the subject property. As it is, MUN is such right; and (3) an act or omission on the claiming its territorial jurisdiction over part of such defendant violative of the right the property and its corollary right to of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the collect taxes. Without the claim of obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff. ownership, there was no supposed right 2. What Complaint for Action for Nullification upon which MUN may anchor its claim and of Title must state for Sufficiency of COA: which SNAP may violate. The amended (1) that the claimant is the owner of the complaint was insufficient for lack of subject land prior to the issuance of the COA. title to the defendant; and (2) that fraud or 2. Neither can an action to amend the subject mistake was perpetrated in obtaining said title proceed. [SEE NOTES, provision not title over the subject land. THAT important] Relief under said 3. Sec 118(c), LocGov Code: Boundary provision can only be granted if there is disputes between and among local unanimity among the parties, or there is no government units shall, as much as possible, adverse claim or serious objection on the be settled amicably. To this end: xxx (c) part of any party in interest, otherwise the Boundary disputes involving case becomes controversial and should be municipalities or component cities of threshed out in an ordinary case or in the different provinces shall be jointly case where the incident properly referred for settlement to the belongs. The issues are limited to those Sanggunians of the provinces concerned. which are so patently insubstantial as not to be genuine issues. Proceedings under this RATIO provision are summary in nature, 1. [SEE RULES 1-2] Based on the amended contemplating insertions of mistakes which complaint, MUN does not claim ownership are only clerical, but certainly not over the property1. The main thrust of controversial issues. Here, the issues are MUN’s claim rests on its allegations that controversial in nature and cannot be fraud attended the securing of the subject summarily disposed of. As aforementioned, patents and certificates of title and that such the gist of respondent municipality's fraud had the effect of depriving it of its amended complaint revolves around its territorial jurisdiction. Such deprivation territorial claim over the subject property. hinges on MUN’s claim that the subject To allow this proceeding to take place and property is actually situated within its grant the ultimate relief prayed for by territorial jurisdiction, and not in the respondent municipality is to allow not Province of Isabela. On the other hand, only the cancellation or amendment of the SNAP strongly denied the allegations of subject patent and title, but also the MUN and underlined the validity of its title alteration of territorial jurisdiction over the Province of Isabela, should a ruling be made in favor of respondent municipality. 1 22. In obtaining a Special Patent and OCT 0-1, defendant National Corporation did not only alter legally established Provincial boundaries 3. The territorial dispute between Ifugao and between the Province of Ifugao and Isabela in general and the Municipalities Isabela has not yet been resolved though of Ramon, Isabela and Alfonso Lista, Ifugao I particlar (sic). Clearly, it also unduly deprived the Province of Ifugao and the Municipality of Alfonso Lista, raised in the case of NPC v. Isabela when Ifugao, of a substantial portion of lands within its territorial jurisdiction and NPC sought its exemption from payment of substantial tax revenues over parcels of land which are clearly within its territorial jurisdiction; local taxes payable to the Isabela. Moreover, Ifugao impleaded Isabela when it filed the amended complaint, maintaining its argument that the location of the subject parcels of land are within its territorial jurisdiction. However, the latter failed to file its Answer. Thus, any relief granted in this action would preempt the proceedings which may later on take place with respect to the territorial jurisdiction of both provinces. 4. MUN is not without remedy. If at all, any issue as to boundary dispute may be resolved by referring the same to the provinces' respective Sangguniang Panlalawigan following Section 118 of the Local Government Code [SEE RULE #3] . MUN’s territorial claim can neither be resolved in an action for nullification of title nor in an action to amend title.
GRANTED.
NOTES:
Sec 108, PD 1529 provides that proceeding for
erasure, alteration or amendement of a certificate of title may be resorted to in 7 instances: : (1.) when registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and ceased; (2.) when new interests have arisen or been created which do not appear upon the certificate; (3.) when any error, omission or mistake was made in entering a certificate of any memorandum thereon or on any duplicate certificate; (4.). when the name of any person on the certificate has been changed; (5.) when the registered owner has been married, or, registered as married, the marriage has been terminated and no right or interest of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; (6.) when a corporation, which owned registered land and has been dissolved, has not conveyed the same within three years after its dissolution; and (7.) when there is reasonable ground for the amendment or alteration of title.